In 1988, Congress enacted the Honest Services Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346, to provide federal prosecutors with another method of criminally prosecuting public officials who forget that public service is not undertaken to benefit themselves but to provide “honest services” to their constituents. Federal prosecutors have used this statute to react to many different types of abuse of office by elected officials. The application of the statute to public officials still generates substantial discussion in the courts, but as of the writing of this analysis, the statute has not been deemed to be unconstitutional and has been applied in many different situations. Essentially, the case law has defined violations of honest services as follows: “When a political official uses his office for personal gain, he deprives his constituents of their right to have him perform his official duties in their best interest.” The Eleventh Circuit has opined that “public officials inherently owe a fiduciary duty to the public to make governmental decisions in the public’s best interest. If the official instead secretly makes his decision based on his own personal interest . . . the official has defrauded the public of his honest services.” The cases fall into two broad categories: 1) bribes or kickbacks, and 2) cases involving self-dealing. The failure to disclose a conflict of interest falls within the intent of the statute.